Sometimes the intention to mislead is very subtle. You might not even know you have it until you direct your mindfulness to it. If you have a lot of friends or relatives, you might know some people who are manipulative by nature. This is not to promote ill will towards such people — they are as much a victim of their own conditioning as we are.

waterchan wrote:Sometimes the intention to mislead is very subtle. You might not even know you have it until you direct your mindfulness to it. If you have a lot of friends or relatives, you might know some people who are manipulative by nature. This is not to promote ill will towards such people — they are as much a victim of their own conditioning as we are.

This truly is a good answer

Get the wanting out of waiting

What does womanhood matter at all, when the mind is concentrated well, when knowledge flows on steadily as one sees correctly into Dhamma. One to whom it might occur, ‘I am a woman’ or ‘I am a man’ or ‘I’m anything at all’ is fit for Mara to address. – SN 5.2

If they take what's yours, tell yourself that you're making it a gift.Otherwise there will be no end to the animosity. - Ajahn Fuang Jotiko

waterchan wrote:Sometimes the intention to mislead is very subtle. You might not even know you have it until you direct your mindfulness to it. If you have a lot of friends or relatives, you might know some people who are manipulative by nature. This is not to promote ill will towards such people — they are as much a victim of their own conditioning as we are.

This truly is a good answer

My question is about misleading others in terms of understanding the Dhamma.

"When you meditate, don't send your mind outside. Don't fasten onto any knowledge at all. Whatever knowledge you've gained from books or teachers, don't bring it in to complicate things. Cut away all preoccupations, and then as you meditate let all your knowledge come from what's going on in the mind. When the mind is quiet, you'll know it for yourself. But you have to keep meditating a lot. When the time comes for things to develop, they'll develop on their own. Whatever you know, have it come from your own mind.http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai ... eleft.html

No one can be 100% sure unless he's already attained enlightenment. Until then one could try their best by starting with a wholesome intention, diligently study the Buddha Dhamma, and support one's claim with backup literatures and sutta references. That way while the interpretation might be off, the readers still have the sources to go to and decide for themselves. It's all part of our learning experience. Also use the general guideline the Buddha gave in AN 8.53:

"As for the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'"

Those that mislead most are the ones who preach Dhamma for self-gain. When people award themselves spiritual authority, they distort the Dhamma by preaching from unsteady foundations, and for unworthy end. So, don't talk Dhamma to feel proud. Stick to the facts, and always be willing to accept your own misapprehension.

If someone is just repeating what they've heard, what they've read, what they've memorized, repeating the general consensus, not speaking from actual experience, then there is always a chance they could be misleading people with what they say. I don't care how in depth one goes into the literature - how many years they've studied, how many degrees they have, how many books they've read, or how much Pali they know - if they aren't also learning to apply it, learning to SEE dhamma in their own experience, confirming what they've read in the books, and speaking from that sort of knowledge, how can they ever know if they know what they know?

So in a nut shell, unless you've seen the things you are saying, you won't know if you are misleading others. The speaker - if he or she is so inclined to admit his or her possible shortcomings with his or her knowledge of a particular subject - can, most courteously, protect the listener with a simple disclaimer. For example: "As far as I have come to understand..." or "As far as So and So has said..." or "According to such and such a source..." or any variation, can help the listener's understanding remain dynamic and open to adjustment.

Okay, this just goes to show how few people are misled nowadays. This is the information age. Few people are misled to anything. We can look things up, challenge people, have differing views. Even famous scholars are taken with a grain of salt and people argue about their views and findings on forums such as this and other places. It's all good.

"Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains what was not said or spoken by the Tathagata as said or spoken by the Tathagata. And he who explains what was said or spoken by the Tathagata as not said or spoken by the Tathagata. These are two who slander the Tathagata."

"Bhikkhus, those bhikkhus who explain non-Dhamrna as Dhamma are acting for the harm of many people, the unhappi­ness of many people, for the ruin, harm, and suffering of many people, of devas and human beings. These bhikkhus generate much demerit and cause this good Dhamma to disappear."

- AN 1.130, Adhamma Sutta (The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha, p105)

in certain situations it is very difficult to know whether a sutta originally was said by the buddha or not, but as David said, this is information age, and there are lot of comparative studies and critical textual analysis done by various scholars.

actual experience also sometimes can be misleading. how many teachers and gurus claimed they were truly enlighten? many examples available for this.

7. And there the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Now, bhikkhus, I shall make known to you the four great references. Listen and pay heed to my words."

"In this fashion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu might speak:(1) 'Face to face with the Blessed One, brethren, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation';(2) or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a community with elders and a chief. Face to face with that community, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation';(3) or: 'In an abode of such and such a name live several bhikkhus who are elders, who are learned, who have accomplished their course, who are preservers of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with those elders, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation';(4) or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a single bhikkhu who is an elder, who is learned, who has accomplished his course, who is a preserver of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with that elder, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation.'

"In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it. But if the sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been well understood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' And in that way, bhikkhus, you may accept it on the first, second, third, or fourth reference. These, bhikkhus, are the four great references for you to preserve."

Then the Blessed One said to Ven. Ananda, "Now, if it occurs to any of you — 'The teaching has lost its authority; we are without a Teacher' — do not view it in that way. Whatever Dhamma & Vinaya I have pointed out & formulated for you, that will be your Teacher when I am gone.

melancholy wrote:actual experience also sometimes can be misleading. how many teachers and gurus claimed they were truly enlighten? many examples available for this.

This is a good point. You can't know if what they claim is dhamma just on the claim that it is "actual experience". The only reason I brought it up was to emphasize that it is the only way the SPEAKER is able to be honest. If the speaker has directly verified what they are speaking on then THEY are not misleading. However, the LISTENER is still in the same boat they were at the beginning - if someone tells them that they experienced something directly they must still take it with a grain of salt.